Firefly as a New Tribal Enterprise by SergeantX

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Firefly as a New Tribal Enterprise

POSTED BY: SERGEANTX
UPDATED: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 19:27
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 8800
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, September 1, 2003 3:10 PM

I don't know how many of you are familiar with the works of Daniel Quinn, but I've just finished his books "Ishmael" and "Beyond Civilization". The former being a novel centered around a presentation of Quinn's observations and conclusions concerning the fate of modern civilization, the latter a collection of essays pertaining to the ideas presented in "Ishmael" with ideas and suggestions for ways we might avoid the doom predicted by the author.

A consistent theme of these books is the idea that agricultural, community based civilization is fundamentally flawed, setting man up as forever in conflict with all other life forms and in a sense himself. He offers as an alternative a return to the social organization model that existed before the current paradigm, namely 'Tribalism'. I should be clear here that he's not suggesting a return to primitive hunter/gatherer modes of subsistence, but rather a change in focus away from large scale communities as the basic unit of society and toward the small tribal enterprise centered around making a living for its members.

I'm not sure I completely buy into Quinn's rather gloomy outlook on the fate of modern civilization, but I was very intrigued by his ideas about people gradually turning away from their standard roles as employees and 'productive members of the community' - he call's them 'pyramid builders' - and towards a fringe where people band together, taking whatever work they can find, doing whatever they can to keep the 'tribe' going. He thinks people will eventually come to see this not as a sacrifice, but as a net gain, preferring the freedom and independence and security found in a group of like minded people who take a personal stake in the success of the group. Now, if you're still with me, is any of this starting to sound familiar?

As I read more and more about what the author called the 'New Tribal Enterprise' I simply couldn't quit thinking about Firefly and our favorite crew of space farers. They really are the perfect example of Quinn's idea. I'm thinking of writing him to see if he'd agree. I'd also be interested to hear what you all think, especially if you've read either of these books.

SergeantX

"..and here's to all the dreamers, may our open hearts find rest." -- Nanci Griffith

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 1, 2003 7:59 PM

FFYING2

Interesting post, Sergeant. I see the Firefly connection, too. I haven't read the books, but I read an article in a college anthro. class called something like "The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race." That being agriculture.

It talked about how people have traditionally had much more free time and even a healthier (varied, unrefined grains) diet as hunter-gatherers than as farmers. The only reason farming got started seems to be that human numbers got too big to support in several regions, so they had to settle down. Then the numbers exploded, and there was no turning back.

Bringing it closer to YOUR "tribe" idea, how often do you hear people complain about their lazy and/or moron bosses and coworkers? How would the Dilbert comic survive otherwise? The idea of being in a small group of people that you know you can count on would probably be popular. It certainly leads many youths into gangs. But those are people whose lives are usually very uncertain, and the gangs provide the only stability.

I think the uncertainty of going job to job would be too much to bear for most developed-world people. People crave stability and "comfortableness." Maybe with the continuing uncertainty in the world economy, more people will look to "tribal enterprises" for stability.

I'm curious what others will say.

Ying/
Firefly Funsite
NEW URL - http://fireflyfunsite.home.att.net

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 1, 2003 8:41 PM

BLUEHOOT

I havent read these books. They do sound like an interesting read but I can see myself being easily pissed off..at least disgruntled.

Reason being? I am an agriculturalist. So far 3 secondary years of study and 5 post-secondary years (being college) and a BS and probably a masters coming sometime in the future. General agriculture IS my specialty (heh).

<>

This is exactly the reason why agricultural practices started in the first place. The population was already growing at a near-exponential rate and the only solution was to start cultivating wild grains and animals.

And I see nothing wrong with that. In fact I see it as if no agricultural practices were ever implemented, this world would be a much different place. Either the human race would be much smaller and fragmented, but most likely without all the advances in technology, sciences, philosophies, etc. That or the population growth trend would still have happened (albeit much slower than now), even in a hunter-gatherer society, and being hunters and gatherers and not replenishing what we take for food (as in agriculture) we would literally have eaten ourselves out of house and home or be near it...nearer it than we are now (but thats another debate).

In a nutshell, I think agriculture is the best thing that could have happened to the human race.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 2, 2003 12:10 AM

DRAKON

Howdy, back from vacation and this looked like an interesting article.

HAve not read or even heard of Quinn's books, but the idea sounds intriguing. At first glance, it is fundamentally flawed however.

Its the problem of big glasses again. Is the glass half empty, or half full. If you look at only that part of it, (argicultural communities that set man in conflict with all other life forms) then civilization is flawed. But one has to ignore the great leaps in technology and economics that is derived from that form of civilization, and is the direct cause for there being so many people alive to begin with.

Large groups allow for divisions of labor, which in turn allows for creation of more goods for more people at lower costs. More people are able to exist now, because of the technical advances and social infrastructure provided by that very civilization he appears to be railing against.

Plus, one of the problems with traditional alternatives, such as tribalism, is it appears to foster a "us against the the world" attitude among its members. For the tribe, everything. For those outside the tribe....?

And there will always be more of them than there are of you, and unless you want to end up like Custer, you have to be careful of who you are at war with, and how you resolve conflicts with other tribes.

People will move to the bigger better deal, to whatever they think will make them happier and healthier. The problem is whether a new paradigm is better at providing for the lives and welfare of its members than the old one. If it isn't, you'll see a mass re-integration going on, and the new solution will die out. I am not sure if tribalism is an effective answer. Even Serenity would cease to exist without the industrial infrastructure of factories making parts for it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 2, 2003 12:21 AM

DRAKON

"In a nutshell, I think agriculture is the best thing that could have happened to the human race."

I have to agree, even though I don't have your education on the issue. Agriculture is key. Getting people to settle down and stay put, requires the solving of several problems that in turn are required for constructing technically advanced civilizations. It is at least a nursery for such.

If you stay in one place, you will quickly deplete the food source. Farming solves that problems right from the beginning. It also raises questions of whose actions accomplished the raising of food, and what rewards should be administered to encourage such endevours. Then you get into property rights, governments, irrigation and other infrastructure components, all as a result of farming initially, but have applications far beyond the local farming village. Trade, economics, mathematics and geometry, all spring from the fertile valleys of the cradles of civilization.

There was an earlier statement that agriculture puts us at war with all other life forms. I hate to tell Quinn this, but out very existence puts us at war with all other life forms. Life feeds on life, and whether that is directed via farming and ranching, or not as in a hunter gatherer situation, its still an "eat or be eaten" world out there. Not just for people, but lions, rabbits, cats, wildebeasts, whales, etc. That is the nature of life.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 2, 2003 3:49 AM

LOTV

Oohh... an idea that coresponds to my plans for world domination... um.. ignore that last thought.

I always had a weird thought in my head about trying to set up a global society that is much less likely to piss other countries off... Sortof like a United Nations sponsored locality that is placed in an area where there are no people to displace and the people understand that they are there to be friendly, and the place isn't going to attack others... Kinda like the ultimate hippy community... that isn't filled with hippies (I'm rambling, I apologize)

Anyway, in a recent thought storm of how to go about that, I thought of separating the nation/city into separate communities. Those who work in the technology sector would live together, researches, etc, to combine those with similar ambitions/thoughts together, to limit clashing civilizations and to encourage higher quality products through communication with like minded individuals...

I think that this concept works well as a modern application to the topic at hand.

LOTV: Ima-who-whata-whoichy-whoda-whazza--huh?

Garapagosu Last Update: 6/24/03

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 2, 2003 11:38 PM

DRAKON

"I think that this concept works well as a modern application to the topic at hand."

Have to disagree. First off, how are you going to segregate folks? By force? The second you use force to keep people from interacting, you are going to have troubles.

Second, or perhaps an extension of the first, it is not the communication between like minded individuals who produce technical innovations, it is communications between people who DON'T think alike that produce the truly novel and unique technical innovations.

And again, how do you prevent people from talking to each other, or any other form of interaction they may choose? Force? Ain't gonna work. PErsuasion requires you offer something, a benefit, and I don't see one there.

The fundamental aspects of humanity is that it is individuals who live, are free, and who will pursue their own happiness, come hell or high water. Trying to prevent folks from doing things you don't like is risky at best.

Besides why would anyone want to dominate the world? Sounds like a paperwork hassle to me.

"my kind of stupid"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 3, 2003 6:03 AM

LOTV

Oh, trust me, I never meant to suggest locking people up and keeping them in little cages apart from each other.

My idea is a city locality that is built purely for the advancement of humanity. No declarations of war, only defensive armies if any, using the most advanced technology, and pushing advancements in medicine, science, and humanity.

For example: We could grow foods (plants and meats) in labs in buildings today. But we don't because its cheaper to pay some cowboy shit to herd cattle around.

We have so much technology that we could use to make this world a better place, but we focus way too much on corporations and making money to do anything with it... I figure we should give the whole "Star Trek Democratic Communism" idea a chance with all the freedoms and the like. The only reason I said areas would be separated, would to try and encourage like minded individuals to share and spread ideas that they had from the others. I encourage interaction between all peoples, but I think coming home to an area with like minded individuals would produce more effective mindsets for the work that they are creating, and less social problems in the homestead.

The idea is still very flawed, and I hope to discuss it more with others later, once I start getting more thoughts behind it, but generally, I think it would be a society where the government actually takes care of the people (Excellent Food, Medicine, Infrastructure, Education, Etc, which would be free) where people are free to choose their lifestyles. All the standard freedoms (Speech, Religion, Truthful Press, Life, Liberty, Etc).

Its a nice dream anyway...

LOTV: Ima-who-whata-whoichy-whoda-whazza--huh?

Garapagosu Last Update: 6/24/03

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 3, 2003 8:09 AM

BLUEHOOT

"My idea is a city locality that is built purely for the advancement of humanity. No declarations of war, only defensive armies if any, using the most advanced technology, and pushing advancements in medicine, science, and humanity.

For example: We could grow foods (plants and meats) in labs in buildings today. But we don't because its cheaper to pay some cowboy shit to herd cattle around. "

First question: In that last sentance, were you meaning that the cowboy in question was paid shittily as in badly and not enough money? Or did you mean something else because I'm not sure if I am reading that right.

Yes, we COULD grow everything we might need for food in a lab, or many things but maybe not everything at the moment. But, if you do grow everything in a lab, you will find much backlash from animal rights organizations saying that animals stuck in some lab is no way to treat a living creature. You would also have backlash from people who would believe that all plants would be Genetically Modified (though it wouldnt be necessary in a lab) and are against that. Locally, I have noticed a growing trend for people to buy "natural" and "organic" and "free range" products. This is not to say that I agree or disagree with animal rights activists, "organic" buyers and those against GM foods, there would just be a large problem with them, much larger than there is now.

Do you also realize that not all discoveries (major and minor) in science are not made in a laboratory? In biological, agricultural, botanical, entomological, oceanographical, and many others, discoveries are made when "out in the field" by initially making observations in situ. And in the case of agricultural sciences, one can only go so far in a lab...you really need to have some experiments done literally in the field to a large acerage or small plots in a whole control of the larger acerage to see what a truer result may be.

This hypothetical society (and I can see the merits) would be for the advancement of humanity, yet what about those lifestyles and cultures that live off the land? A whole other debate would have to address the issue that these cultures and lifestyles are slowly dying out as it is. But while it probably is cheaper to pay a rancher to raise cattle and a farmer to cultivate wheat, one has to remember that most of these ranchers and farmers do not get paid enough for all the money and hard work they put into growing a product you want. Note that I am not talking about corporate farming, that also would need another debate. Ranching and farming is a whole lifestyle. There is no vacations from it and families stay in debt for a very very long time just to keep the farm running.

Then there are those few semi-nomadic cultures still left such as small tribes still living on the Mongolian steppe, or any of the people still living in the rainforest or on African plains or in the Australian outback. I think its more valuable to learn what we can while we can from these cultures and lifestyles as they are rather than having a small representation of each living in a commune setting.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 3, 2003 10:29 AM

HJERMSTED

I admit I haven't read it in a long while, but didn't the novel Ecotopia deal with a lot of this stuff?

Or am I offbase here?

mattro

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 3, 2003 12:57 PM

SERGEANTX

Hey, thanks to everyone for the interesting ideas and responses. As most of you don't seem to be familiar with the books, I'd like to say that most of the concerns/questions/criticisms raised are dealt with by Quinn in a convincing manner, but I'd be doing him a disservice to try and defend the ideas myself. I'd have to write a book just get the point across adequately and, well, he already did that.

I will however try to give you a little better idea why the tribal alternative is preferred from Quinn's point of view. One of the biggest problems with our kind of civilization is that it is so expansionist by nature. It generates a population pressure that tends to, and in fact requires, a continued outward expansion. Not only is does it expand geographically but culturally, as it is fundamentally incompatible with most other culture styles. (imagine a major nomadic culture co-existing with an agriculturally based one)

Essentially the culture operates as a type of "Ponzi scheme"(my analogy), requiring more and more land and workers to support its continued expansion. But eventually the system outstrips its base, offering less and less to the base population that makes up its foundation. It has taken a lot time for this to happen, at least in human terms. Its been a short while from evolution's point of view. Quinn's conclusion is that the current civilization model is just not sustainable and will fall away as the human race evolves, assuming we do survive.

Again, what I find most interesting about this analysis, is how well it reflects the conflict between the Alliance and the former independent planets. The Alliance is a high tech bureaucratic culture that insists on expansion and requires the continued assimilation of fringe societies. Serenity, and other independent peoples, live on their own, making their own way with their own rules and values.

SergeantX

"..and here's to all the dreamers, may our open hearts find rest." -- Nanci Griffith

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 3, 2003 8:57 PM

LOTV

First off, apologies to SERGEANTX for kinda taking this whole thread on a similar but not quite on topic tangent.

Okay- Answering BlueHoot's questions:

First off, I did mean that cowboys are paid next to nothing for all the work that they do... Farmers and ranchers really get jacked for all the hard work they put in for their products, and its just one of the many many things that I had about how our system screws people over.

Also, as to the lab scenario. First: Many animals are kept in local, small cages/buildings. I heard Perdue raises its chickens in tubes, completely featherless...

Second: When I meant raising meat in labs, I meant actual meat, not animals. We do have the technology now that can enable us to grow a steak (more or less) in a lab, no animals involved, except for perhaps a little DNA for the cell culture.

Third: Vegetables grown in labs can also be done without genetically modifying them. Everyone's heard of Hydroponics, right? Sure it takes a while longer, but in a multi-story building you could grow just as much for the population you are taking care of, without requiring as much effort to take care of the crops from pests/weather.

And for my final point, I am not suggesting the assimilation of all cultures and all peoples into this society. That is not only impossible, but insane as well. The structure of this society is not set to be a large, widespread experiment. It has been attempted before, but never succeeded. Large area societies (Soviet Union, China) get corrupted and diverge from the original intent. Small style communes never have enough resources to suceed properly.

I suggest at most, a city/state type area, because of two reasons. 1. Trying to convert an entire nation, of any size to such an experiment would be impossible, not to mention it would garner a stong opposition from those already in the country. 2. To try and succesfully integrate a new govenment like this, it would be best to try an place it in an area with little or no people to displace. It is evident with the current Middle East Crisis, that displacing any large population will cause too many problems. To keep the number of people displaced to a minimum, one would have to limit the area to a compact, efficiently planned city, with little or no room for open space.

Finally, for the people to inhabit this area, it is purely by choice. Today, so many countries complain about the number of immigrants moving in to "their land". With this city, people can come here, and form a true international society, where everyone more or less is a foreigner to begin with, and everyone knows it. It could become a central hub for refugees who do not want to deal with war an hatred anymore. Hopefully that will eliminate most of the elitism, but given time that might change, because others will begin to say "My family came here first, this is OUR country".

As mentioned, the idea is still very flawed... Nothing close to even being considered acted upon, and then actually acting upon it, would be many times more difficult to put into motion.

But I appreciate those who are responding and questioning.. It really helps to get the mind working deeper on what exactly to do.

Okay, rant over.. Now returning you to your regularly scheduled Quinn-Tribe thread.

LOTV: Ima-who-whata-whoichy-whoda-whazza--huh?

Garapagosu Last Update: 6/24/03

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 4, 2003 2:16 AM

DRAKON

Before you go any further, I would highly recommend that you read Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" There are many problems with your proposal, the least of which is that if you foreswear the use of coercion, your system collapses. Folks will disagree, do what they like makes them happy and to heck with your plans and intentions. (BTW: You do know what good intentions are called in Hell, right? Asphalt)

Rule 0: There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Someone always has to pick up the check. If it is not the end user, it is the guy cooking the food, or making the medicine. And if he is doing so at a loss, where all he gets is, what? your prase? he ain't going to do it.

Before long, people will note that they get all the free goodies whether they work, or create them or not. And producing goods does you no good, as the government comes and takes them (using force?) to hand out to others. It encourages free riders, discourages producers and everyone ends up poorer all around. See North Korea, and the former Soviet Union, for examples.

Hayek's argument however is different. Basically economic decisions are based on perceptions, which in turn is based on information the guy making the decisions has on hand. Centralized control of the economy does not scale. Beyond a small size, there is too much information for any single individual or small group to make all the economic decisions of a large population.

In short, the government will never be able to provide all the goods and services that you want them to. Democratic socialism is even worse in this respect, because while the deciding body is debating how and where to deliver a certain good, the situations change so much that the newly adopted plan is no longer effective.

To overcome this, the situation evolves to concentrate decision making capabilities into the hands of fewer and fewer people. There is no time for a vote, things are not working, etc. etc.

And the single guy who gets that power is the guy who will "get things done" has the will and drive to make the "tough decisions". Which means in practical fact, you end up with a Stalin or Hitler as the central autocratic authority.

But even he cannot garner enough information to make all the myriad economic decisions that a population will and needs to make every day. Scapegoats need to be found and prosecuted, or persecuted, blamed for the failures of the system. So you end up with death camps, or gulags.

"but we focus way too much on corporations and making money to do anything with it... " This is not quite true, but does indicate a misconception of what money is. Money is information, it is a means of measuring the subjective value of an object. Economic values are subjective, dependent on a particular individual. You might like chocolate covered raisins. Personally, you can't pay me to eat them. Our tastes differ, and so do our value of the raisins.

Making money is a key phrase here, because this is what businesses do, is create money, wealth, things of value to other people. When you take something nearly worthless, like say sand, and mix it with some other stuff, and create a computer, you have created something more valuable to more people than the sand and other raw materials alone (or even combined) are.

It costs you so much to take the raw materials and make something. Someone offers you a price for your manufactured item. The difference, the profit, is actually a measure of how effecent you are at taking low value items and making high value items out of them.

Yes, I know, money is not real, its an idea. But it is an idea that is extremely useful, it provides information to corporations as to how they are doing at creating things that people want. And in our society, it is the individual who decides what he will eat, drive, wear, or whatever, not some centralized authority. If people don't want your product, they simply will not buy it. Of their own free will, and may never explain why they decided to pass you by.

It is cheaper to have cattle ranches than meat labs. That should tell you something right there. Taking expensive items and making them less valuable is not a good idea. Wasting expensive lab space when you can provide the beef cheaper, does not make a whole lot of sense.

You may not like the decisions that the market makes, but the market is comprised of millions of individuals all making their decisions based on what they know, feel, believe, suspect and perceive the world. They all have the same mark 1 mod 1 brain you do, their experiences and information differ. Before you go about deciding how they should decide, you might want to consider that perhaps they got it right, and not you.

Sorry if this has been somewhat harsh. But communism and socialism, any form of totalitarian system simply does not work in the real world with real people. There are something like 100 million dead thanks to communism alone. It does not create the Utopia that you seem to think it will. It does not lead to "man's advancement". It leads to the hovel, the gulag and the graveyard. That is the history of the 20th Century.

"my kind of stupid"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 4, 2003 2:46 AM

DRAKON

"I think its more valuable to learn what we can while we can from these cultures and lifestyles "

I sorta agree with this, but probably not in a manner that you would like.

There is a reason why western culture has spread and all these other minority cultures are in decline. Mongols once ruled an empire that stretched from China to Europe and included much of the middle east. Today as you note, there are only a few. For some reason, the West has survived, while the nomadic mongols are dying out.

So it is a good idea to learn what we can, so as to avoid their mistakes.

It should be noted that a culture can die out in two ways, not just one. The first is by killing off all the individual members of a particular culture. The other is for those members to leave that culture and adopt or invent a new one. Sometimes people vote with their feet as to what they like better.

'my kind of stupid"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 4, 2003 2:57 AM

DRAKON

(imagine a major nomadic culture co-existing with an agriculturally based one)

We don't have to imagine, you can read about it in history. They are called Mongols, Huns and Vikings. Note that in all these cases, the nomadic tribes were the ones invading the more pastorial and sedentary agricultural societies. Not the other way around.

"Essentially the culture operates as a type of "Ponzi scheme"(my analogy), requiring more and more land and workers to support its continued expansion." This is Malthus' argument all over again. Unfortunately, its still wrong. It ignores the effects of technology on food production. The fact that things like irrigation, pesticides and fertilizer all can increase the yeild of a plot of land, such that less land is required to feed a given population. (Or alternately, the same land can feed a growing population.)

The culture will and has evolved. After the Agricultural revolution, we've had the industrial revolution, and the information revolution. Buckminster Fuller is right, the entire direction of technical developement has been doing more and more with less and less. That makes it sustainable, despite the dire predictions of Malthus et.al.

There really is no rationale given for the Alliance's stance in the war. The independence is easy enough to see, who does not want to be free. However, why would the Alliance need, let alone want, a bunch of independently minded folks under their rule. I highly doubt it is a food issue, and obviously not a technological one. Its not about slavery, as the Alliance are the slave owners (at least not on the Alliance's side)

"my kind of stupid"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 4, 2003 3:08 AM

DRAKON

"First off, I did mean that cowboys are paid next to nothing for all the work that they do... Farmers and ranchers really get jacked for all the hard work they put in for their products, and its just one of the many many things that I had about how our system screws people over."

When you go to the store, do you buy the most expensive food, or the least expensive that you can afford? Here is the problem that screws people over. You. You won't or can't pay the kind of prices that you feel farmers are entitled to. Niether will most other folks, as there are all other sorts of things, (like shoes, shampoo, housing, car, gas etc. etc. etc.) that have to be paid for as well, with the limited funds a person has.

As for your second and third point, again, it depends on the cost required to do what you want. The farmer that has less costs, makes more profits. Those profits he can put back into his farm, making it more productive. Buy a new combine, or tractor etc. Your lab grown food still has to compete with these low cost farmers, and if the profits are less, there is less incentive to do it. Profits are information, telling you how effective or efficient you are at creating things of value to other folks.

Maybe your ideas on how to grow meat and vegatables might work. Only one way to find out, do it. See if you can make a living at it. See if you can compete in the market place. Let other folks decide if your products are worth the price you charge.

And actually Utopian concepts are probably as old as mankind himself. These ideas, or something like them have been tried, and failed. One needs force to compel others to act outside their own interests, and especially to act contrary to their own interests. That is the only way to stear any large population in a direction you want it to go, is by force. Deliberate social engineering has a dismal track record to date, mostly because you are dealing with humans.

'my kind of stupid"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 4, 2003 6:11 AM

LOTV

Okay.. really deep breath here...(Thanks for all this input, I like typing long messages)

Free Lunch... I disagree. That's the point of a "communism" style society. Since the govenment owns the industries, as long as they have the resources to produce and perform the actions they need, they can do so without care of cost. Money is thrown out the window in the corporate setting. The only times it comes into play is for the trade of private goods. As the old model goes, people claim in communism, everyone gets a red bike. What if you don't want a red bike? Then you take your money, and buy a blue sportscar. You just have to take longer to get it. I'm not suggesting removal of money at all, just in the corporate standpoint, of "we can't produce this because its not profitable", and "we're going to pay Chinese workers nothing to make our shoes." That is unfair to others, and hurts humanity as a whole. I can't believe that people cannot have life saving operations because they do not have the money for it. That's bullshit right there. These are human lives we are talking about, that are losing those lives because some doctor/medical school/etc. has set the bill to their standing. If you wanted to be a doctor, I really hope it was because you wanted to save lives, because otherwise you would be a dispicible excuse for a human being.

I'm getting off topic.. apologies.

Again, in a "communist" setting, the government doesn't take the products, it creates them itself, then ships it to its own distribution centers. Not everything is free, only the basics of necessary human life, which can be argued, but there are basics that everyone would agree to. And we can use modern technology to keep track of who is regularly checking in to work or not. Mainting that a citizen use a keycard to sign it for work, and then use that same keycard to get their food, can ensure that there are no freeloaders.

You mention that there is too much information for one person to control an entire enconomy. Again, I emphasize this is a smaller scale idea, nothing on the scale of a full sized country, because its too difficult to manage, and leaders become too corrupt screwing the poor over. Because an entire economy is too difficult to manage solely by one individual or a group, you develop a "capitalist communism" model. The government creates companies, which run just as normal companies do in a capitalist environment, with presidents, industry managers, product analysts, etc. That way one person is not overloaded with an impossible amount of information. The main problem with that though, is dealing with which companies get the resources they need. Again, the focus is placed on the basic necessities, and those companies which cover the food, housing, utilities, etc. get the materials they need to support the civilian infrastructure.

Finally, little points before I stop taking up space on the net here. The reason I suggest lab produced meat is because the area I suggest for this experiment would not have enough room for large herds to graze around. I mentioned before that I would suggest an area that would relocate as few if any natives as possible. In today's world that basically leaves us with the Sahara, a small island in the ocean, or if you were lucky enough, some isolated area in Australia.

Also, using the Soviet Union and North Korea as your examples of communist states makes for a poor argument, because they never were Communist. The people who started the revolutions came into power, and they never gave that power to the rest. Orwell's Animal Farm: "All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others." There is nothing to say that this idea would not fall to the same trap, for it would be run by humans, and humans obviously are poor people to place trust into. But I wonder with how much war, hate, and death we have today, if there weren't enough people willing to give it a try. That is my motivation to move people. Not death marches, not a revolution, or a war of any sort. Just to create a place for those who want to leave in peace, those who are willing to work for it, as humanity, not as seperate individuals, races, nations, or sexes. Its just a dream, but if we don't dream, how will anything ever get done?

e-mail me at gameworldmatt@yahoo.com if you have any other comments... Again, apologies to sergeantx for taking this off course.

LOTV: Ima-who-whata-whoichy-whoda-whazza--huh?

Garapagosu Last Update: 6/24/03

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2003 2:14 AM

DRAKON

Grin, I knew this was going to be interesting.

Any business that does not "care about cost" is doomed to failure from the beginning. Money is not being thrown out the windows of corporations, if it is, I want to know which windows to camp out under. You may not agree with their investment choices and such, but still it is their money and their business. The laws of the market reward or punish them.

It is important to recognize what a corporation is, it is essentially a bunch of people banding together volutarily for a business activity. A government is also a bunch of people as well, so transferring ownership from one bunch of people to another bunch of people does not solve your problem. Indeed ans the Soviets found out, it makes things worse for everyone, because the government does not have as vested an interest in the corporation as the original owners do.

If a corporation cannot produce something because "it is not profitable" that should tell you something right away about how valuable this thing is to the population at large. It tells you that people don't want it, demand it, as much as you think they should.

There is a similar fallacy at work when you talk about Chinese workers and their pay. At this stage of the game, their pay is low. It is also true that their standard of living and access to goods is also quite low as well. They live in a different part of the world and standards of living are different for different people. (Some folks can't live without their morning Starbucks. Some don't even know what Starbucks is.)

And again, it comes back to you. If you, (and a heck of a lot more) were willing to pay more for those products, then their wages would not be an issue. But people go for the best deal they can get, the lowest price they are willing to pay for the product. That pushes businesses to reducing costs, including wages.

As for "setting the bill" This is not accurate. Prices are set by the laws of supply and demand. Something that is rare, and in high demand, has a high price. Whether it is medical treatment or shoes, it does not matter. It costs a lot of money, time, and effort to become a doctor. While we would all like to gain his services for free, that would render him nothing more than a slave. Not a good idea.

You might find the reality despicable, but it is the reality you live in. Life saving medical treatments that in principle are available for anyone (who can pay) were science fiction not that long ago. Not available to ANYONE regardless of how much money they had. And even now, it costs people to provide those services, to get the training and build the equipment. Those costs have to be paid by someone, either in cold cash, or starving bellies.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone always pays, period. Either the guy building the factory eats, or starves to death. Either the guy performing surgery eats, or before long, you lose him.

You talk about key cards and rationing. Again, short of force, how are you going to make this work? Showing up for work is not the same as providing value to your employers, and using modern technology to spy on your population, well, again, read Hayek. This is the beginning of the police state.

As for "governments creating businesses" how is this to work differently or better than what is available today? Again, whether it is started by this group of people or that, I don't see any improvement.

And lastly, the Soviet Union and North Korea are EXACTLY apt examples of what you are talking about. Government ownership of business. Yes, you are right they were never "communistic" in the sense you want them to be. That is because communism simply does not work. Its a nice theory, but it requires rewriting the pysche of the entire population. (A new Soviet Man)

Humans are selfish, greedy folks. They had to be, otherwise they would have died out long ago. Humans exist as individuals, they form and create groups in order to further their own selfish, greedy interests, (such as staying alive) but the group is merely a fiction created for the purposes of survival of the individual. When the group no longer serves that function, it ceases to exist as folks vote with their feet.

In other words, humanity is just a concept, a mental fiction. It is not a real thing like you or I. Trying to base your civilization on such a concept, disconnected from the reality or purpose of that concept is doomed to failure. History is replete with such failed dreams that do not take into account reality.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2003 4:18 AM

LOTV

Alright, last post on this subject, and then hopefully someone will return this thread to its orginal purpose, because 1: I am never going to change your opinion, and 2: We are off topic by far.

1. Communist govenment taking control of a corporate structure. WRONG! This idea takes place in an area that has nothing to begin with. All industry and corporations are built up from scratch to perform the needs for the society. And they are not run by govenment officials. They are run by the same people that would run them anywhere else: Individuals trained specifially for the industry they are in. You don't have a politician run a music industry. It won't work. Just as you don't have a Texas cowboy as president. This get screwed up that way, got it?

Medicines are often not made or produced because they aren't profitable. We could have roads and cars that are efficient, drive themselves, and are completely safe. But no one wants to do it because there would be no profit. Don't you see? The would could be cleaner, safer, and more efficient if someone stopped giving such a damn about making a profit.

As to doctors being slaves for their work. How many well are there who could become doctors to help other people out, but can't because medical school costs too much? I can guarentee that someone who wants to be a doctor to help humanity, rather than their own wallet, will be a much better doctor. That's why in this society, the necessary basics for living (which include EDUCATION) are covered. People can become doctors if they want to and have the mental/physical capabilites for it.

And if you haven't noticed, our lives are dependant on everyone else. If that doctor, who saves lives, didn't have his garbage taken out, or a farmer to feed him, he would die pretty soon. Everyones job is important. That is why everyone get the same needs for free, and the same pay for goods that they might want.

Finally: Humanity. Yes, we are basically, by nature, greedy, stubborn back stabbing monsters. But we can ignore those emotions you know... That is what makes us Human and not animals. We can rise above our instincts that others cannot.

Perhaps you should give it a try sometime. Might make your neighbors like you a little more.

Peace Out, Everyone.

Back to you seargentx

LOTV: Ima-who-whata-whoichy-whoda-whazza--huh?

Garapagosu Last Update: 6/24/03

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2003 3:29 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda.

A Communist society won't work if human beings are in charge of it. Been tried. Utopia requires an omniscient and omnipotent dictator who is absolutely uncorruptable.

--Anthony

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2003 6:54 PM

AEROPAX

I guess I'll use my first post to steer this thread back to the beginning. Hi I'm Pax, Fly-Fan and student of Daniel Quinn. I have to say that FF as good as it is, does not strike me as relating to Quinns teachings in any really meaningful way. The crew is a tribe of course and Quinn promotes tribalism, but tribalism is only a suggestion from Quinn as a better way to live, not a core belief in his teachings. Remember he also says there is no one right way to live. So superficially you can draw a corrolation, but I don't see it going any deeper than that.

For those who have not read Quinn, his teachings are really very simple. We are not the masters of the Earth, we are a part of it. We may compete to the best of our ability, but not deny other beings on the planet the chance to evolve. His second point is that we have not as humans stopped evolving, man is not the final end to all creation, there is more to come. We have taken ourselves out of the evolutionary chain and will eventually pay the ultimate price.

2 pretty simple statements that are hard to accept at first becase we have been so conditioned believe that there must be some complex answer to our problems. Anyway, if you're interested, read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn and enjoy, whether you agree or not, its a great story. An education wrapped in fiction, that will at first have you saying OMG how obvious, then leave you scrambling to figure out how to change yourself and others to turn things around, then finally realise that you are already changed and need not do anything drastic. Having been shown what is what, you will make the right choices and follow your own path.

Hope this all didn't sound to cult like, of course if you have read Quinn you would know that cults aren't always bad things. Anyway, my 2 cents. Ismael.com and Ishcon.org are 2 good places to learn more about Quinn.

Pax
Tulsa, OK
"Once more unto the breach"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2003 7:16 PM

ALIENZOOKEEPER

Shame on you Drakon for egging the socialist on!

I've seen this sort of thing a lot over the years & all i can say is that people never learn, just keep making the same mistakes in new ways.

As far as the original topic goes, i agree with it. People seem to live best in smaller groups, looking after their own interests. Problem is, we don't have the luxury of living that way. We need specialists, which means large populations & at least some kind of central government.

vince

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2003 10:17 PM

DRAKON

Okay, looking over this, I am not getting you at all. Either the businesses are created and run by private individuals, automotously, or the government either runs the business itself, (or regulates it to the point where it become a difference that makes no difference.)

If you let private individual run their own companies as they see fit, well, you get capitalism. If you run it by government regulation and management, you don't. There are really only two choices here, either you make your own decisions on how you conduct your business or someone else decides for you.

[BTW: you might want to drop the "Texas cowboy' line. It has kind of a snobbish quality that some blue collar types might find offensive and figure you are simply another elitist not worth listening to.]

And again, you seem to not understand just what profits tell you. It means that you are doing something wrong, if you are not making a profit. It means the market, meaning the individual decisions of the entire population have judged that your product is not an effective use of resources.

We measure value in money, despite the fact that value is kind of an individual thing. It costs to produce a medicine, or bring a new technology to market. While supply is tangible, anyone can count the number of widgets in the warehouse, demand is a bit harder to determine ahead of time. Demand, like value will differ from individual to individual. It is risky bringing a new product to market in itself, to say nothing of potential liability lawsuits waiting for you.

It costs to produce, in time, effort and resources (raw material). Again, we can measure all these in money, for convience. The price you charge for your product, or rather the price you get for your product is a measure of how valuable your product is to the market. The difference between the cost of resources used and the price of the finished good, the profit, tells you how much you have changed the value of those raw materials. It tells you how effective you are at turning a low value resource into a high value good, of turning something that is not worth much, into something that is (hopefully) highly desirable, useful, to the population at large.

If you are not making a profit, this means you are taking things of little value to the population and making them even less desirable. It also means that soon, you will run out of resources, money, to keep your business going. Your business will whither and die, and other businesses will step in, buy those resources you were buying, and try to make goods that are more valuable than you did.

In other words, economic efficiency is preserved, because one can look at the profits a company creates and determine which businesses are doing a good job with the resources they use, and which are not. Ineffecient businesses die out, efficient businesses expand and grow, creating more wealth for more people. It sounds Darwinian, and in fact it is. But it is the most effective way we have ever come up with of providing the most wealth for the most people.

[Perhaps that is the point you find so distasteful, the Darwinian aspect of the market?]

If folks are not producing medicines, or cars that drive themselves, because there is no profit in it, that should tell you something about the project. That it is not an efficient allocation of resources, that can be used more efficiently and effectively elsewhere. It means that people will not pay enough to cover the costs. It means before long, someone has to stop eating, just to keep these projects going.

Unprofitable enterprises consume wealth, and don't create enough to keep going, or even expand. Wealth is not like matter or energy, it can be created and destroyed. Destroying wealth is like burning your crops. An unprofitable business is like locust, it has to eat, it has to consume resources. It either creates value for those resources, or it must consume valuable things from elsewhere.

"That is why everyone get the same needs for free, and the same pay for goods that they might want."

There are two problems with this statement. The first of which is the problem of needs and wants. All needs are predicated on wants. You want to live, you need air, food, water, etc. If you don't want to live, you do not need those things. Needs are only a means to an end, and at the end, is wants. Desires.

The second problem is the "same pay" thingie. What you are obviously talking about here is wage controls. Everyone gets paid the same regardless of what work they do, or more importantly, how valuable the work is to the population at large. Doctors get paid more than street cleaners, because we value the work a doctor does more than we value the street cleaner. Its harder to become a doctor, not everyone has the temprament for it, but comparatively far easier to push a broom. Supply and demand sets wages just as they do for any resource.

By fixes wages at a set and uniform level, you lose the ability to judge the value of a person's work. You screw up the entire system, and lose the information that you would otherwise get by letting the market determine wages. Remember what money, wages, prices and costs all are, they are pieces of information. Fixing any of these at some level for everyone is about as useful as fixing a thermometer to always read 98.6.

You see the selfishness and greed as emotions. This is not acurate. They are survival traits. Those who are selfless, altruistic, end up getting eaten, sacrificing themselves for the sake of others. Think about it in the wild. Take two guys and one lion. The altruist is going to let himself get eaten so the selfish one can survive. Before long, you have nothing but a population of selfish folk, because all the altruists were food for lions.

Then what? Well, if no one is willing to sacrifice themselves, they have to work out some other way of dealing with the threat. Perhaps banding together to kill the lion, instead of getting eaten by it. Wouldn't the population be better off with the dead lion instead of having to sacrifice one of its members every time it got hungry?

Being selfish, greedy and stubborn are the reasons why we are at the top of the food chain today, instead of having gone the way of the dodo and dinosaur. You want to change that, well, I don't see it happening. You have 5 million years of evolution to contend against, and even if it were possible, all you are doing is preparing dinner for something or someone else.

As for my neighbor's feelings toward me, things seem fine. I don't bother them, and they don't bother me. Thanks for your concern and advice, but it is hardly necessary.

"my kind of stupid"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2003 10:36 PM

DRAKON

"Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda.

A Communist society won't work if human beings are in charge of it. Been tried. Utopia requires an omniscient and omnipotent dictator who is absolutely uncorruptable.

--Anthony"

Utopia is probably the most aptly named concept ever invented. It is a greek word, mean "no where"

"my kind of stupid"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2003 10:56 PM

DRAKON

I am sorry, what can I say. Whenever I see this kind of idea pop up time and time again, I have to fight it. Enough people have died in the search for socialist utopia already. We don't need more dead people.

I like what Heinlein said about specialization. Its for insects.

"my kind of stupid"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 6, 2003 4:19 PM

RITA

Hey there Bluehoot i would love to know what someone of your trade and education thinks about Geneticaly Modified crops being grown in the open air? OOOOOOHhhhhhhhhh i so hope you see this and respond to it because i am awfully concerned about this very contentious subject

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 7, 2003 12:45 PM

BLUEHOOT

Rita

I'll start a new thread just for the GMO subject.

Edit: since its not Firefly related I'll also go put it in Talk Story.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 9, 2003 11:15 AM

RITA

HEY BLUEHOOT how do i log on to talk story email me at ritakaren@earthlink.net

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 13, 2003 9:04 PM

LORASAFREAK

Ok,

I have to agree with some of the others that have responded and I would like to expand upon this.

1. Agriculture : agriculture is the foundation of civilization. A little place called Mesopotamea is what is thought to be the hearth of human civilization as we know it. This sedate lifestyle of the agricultural society as opposed to the hunter gatherer societies, allowed for one important feature that has been crucial to our development. Security. This security allowed for development of knowledge. At first basic things such as gauging floods and their affects on crops to philosophy and the modern science of today, ie without these stable and secure communities nothing that we take for granted would exist as it does today.

2. Tribalism, while it sounds great, it has many flaws, as testified by the last known segment of the human population to participate in this, the Inuit. Their societies were corrupt and harsh. It was not simply something that people could adjust to. Food becomes the main determining factor. It was not uncommon to kill children when times got rough. Their societies had a limited growth because of the area required to provide them with adequate resources, which led to another problem. Isolation. This isolation meant that there was a limited gene pool. This caused many recessive and disadvantageous genes to permeate through the generations. Tribalism in a less harsh environment would incorporate many of the same principles, because it always comes down to the same ecological principal, there are only so much resources, and therefore there will always exist competition.

3. Competition. Competition in the natural world exists to bring balance to an ecosystem, or for the individual, survival. The type of competition that we experience is more of a success/failure type, humans strive to achieve, and as such have shown that they require dominance, over nature, over each other, etc... This competition would translate into competition between tribes. Tribalism would not necessarily mean that we would live simpler lives, we would perhaps live different lives, but our sense of competition would be "reset" to survival mechanisms.

The world is not a happy wonderful place that will give us all that we need if we just ask and be patient. The world/nature is harsh and full of competition, we are just one of the many that exist within that balance. I don't think that we would live a simpler life if we lived in tribes, our focus may shift, but we will always remain in competition, whether it's for success or survival. Maybe I'm off base here, but I'd like to hear what you have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 14, 2003 12:58 AM

ARCHER

Sarge Sarge Sarge... why didn't you tell me about this beautiful thread that ran in my absence? Tsk. You started a beauty here.

Drakon, I don't know which is the greater pleasure... watching you ably argue positions I agree with, or engaging in a mind-expanding debate with you.

Now to pick a few nits with the good Sergeant...

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

I will however try to give you a little better idea why the tribal alternative is preferred from Quinn's point of view. One of the biggest problems with our kind of civilization is that it is so expansionist by nature. It generates a population pressure that tends to, and in fact requires, a continued outward expansion. Not only is does it expand geographically but culturally, as it is fundamentally incompatible with most other culture styles. (imagine a major nomadic culture co-existing with an agriculturally based one)

Essentially the culture operates as a type of "Ponzi scheme"(my analogy), requiring more and more land and workers to support its continued expansion. But eventually the system outstrips its base, offering less and less to the base population that makes up its foundation. It has taken a lot time for this to happen, at least in human terms. Its been a short while from evolution's point of view. Quinn's conclusion is that the current civilization model is just not sustainable and will fall away as the human race evolves, assuming we do survive.

Civilization being expansionist by nature is a function of evolution. Either a society grows, or it becomes stagnant and gets overtaken. History is full of examples of peaceful peoples who lived in what amounted to cultural stasis, and they tend to get swallowed in the face of dynamic cultures.

In evolutionary terms, there is a dynamic known as the Red Queen scenario, I believe, that essentially states that 'you run as fast as you can just to stay in place.' The effect is that species grow, adapt, and evolve on a constant basis just to maintain their niche. Likewise with cultures, which have to keep adapting and evolving in order to not be subsumed by newer forms of civilization.

Beyond our own intra-specie-ist concerns, the long-term survivability of the human race dictates that we need to expand, beyond this planet at the very least, and to the stars ASAP. I'd be much happier with the state of affairs if I had some idea that in a few generations there'll be plenty of people not hanging around this rock waiting for the next dinosaur killer or comet chunk to come a'knockin'.

As for the people at the continual growth of the cultural machine requiring more labor, the latest economic complaint has been the continued growth of productivity lessening the need for low-end jobs. In America, the bottom of the pyramid is not getting less as the top gets more, wealth is growing continually at all levels. (Drakon spoke on this extensively and eloquently in the Iraq thread.) I'm not accusing you of making the statement, but the whole 'Rich get richer and the poor get poorer' line of thinking makes me want to retch. Here in America, I've known more than one 'have-not' coming at me with that line of thinking, while living in a house with two TVs.

You've been on to me to read the books, Sarge, and I swear upon the graves of my dishonorable (and occasionally honorable) ancestors that I'll check for 'em next time I hit the Barnes & Noble.

Regards to all.

We don't know who put this cup of life into our hands. But when we go our bones will bake upon the burning sands. 'Cause we walk but once among the living, so no regrets and no forgiving- it's hard to dance when you're down upon your knees. And these are dark days indeed.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 14, 2003 3:36 AM

SERGEANTX

Hey Archer, thanks for responding. You know how much I'd love to hear your take on this topic. Unfortunately I'm too obtuse and this format too limiting for me to adequately reproduce the perspective presented in the book. If you do get time to read one his books I'd love to discuss it with you. I kind of lost interest in this thread when it devolved into yet another prefabricated libertarian/statist argument. Not to knock those, I've instigated plenty and you know my position, just interested in other things.

SergeantX

"..and here's to all the dreamers, may our open hearts find rest." -- Nanci Griffith

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 14, 2003 7:03 AM

FRANCO

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
A consistent theme of these books is the idea that agricultural, community based civilization is fundamentally flawed, setting man up as forever in conflict with all other life forms and in a sense himself. He offers as an alternative a return to the social organization model that existed before the current paradigm, namely 'Tribalism'. I should be clear here that he's not suggesting a return to primitive hunter/gatherer modes of subsistence, but rather a change in focus away from large scale communities as the basic unit of society and toward the small tribal enterprise centered around making a living for its members.

I'm not sure if it can be viewed this narrowly, but it has always been my opinion that given unlimited ability to colonize the galaxy and the very limited ability to exercise central control over the frontier colonies, there would be lots of despotic worlds out there and a resurgence of indentured servitude if not outright slavery would be likely.

In the Firefly universe there is a stong implication that we have learned to manipulate energy and mass to the extent that privately owned ships can flit around the galaxy at will and planets/moons can be quickly and cheaply terraformed.

In such a universe every man can be a King and we all know that it is good to be King.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Franco

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 14, 2003 3:22 PM

ARCHER

Actually Franco, John Campbell (one of the top science fiction editors of the golden age of that genre) put it best when he corrected that truism.

It's not power that corrupts, per se. It's immunity. When uneasy rests the head that wears the crown, said crown tends to be a lot more cautious in exercising its power.

Conversely, even a normal fellow can create a great deal of havoc if given immunity from consequences. (You can see that in cases where various dips get Federal immunity for stooling and spend their time rampaging about making people's lives miserable.)

The eternal antidote to oppressive government is a citizenry prepared to take it down.

We don't know who put this cup of life into our hands. But when we go our bones will bake upon the burning sands. 'Cause we walk but once among the living, so no regrets and no forgiving- it's hard to dance when you're down upon your knees. And these are dark days indeed.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 14, 2003 10:35 PM

DRAKON

Quote:
I'm not sure if it can be viewed this narrowly, but it has always been my opinion that given unlimited ability to colonize the galaxy and the very limited ability to exercise central control over the frontier colonies, there would be lots of despotic worlds out there and a resurgence of indentured servitude if not outright slavery would be likely.

I really hope you are wrong, and I think in one respect you may be.

As a culture or species expands beyond its home planet, you will see less centralized control. Its damn difficult to run an intersteller empire, mostly because of communications. That could lead to localized pockets of despotism. But there is a bug here.

Each colony will be competing against all others for new settlers. While it may be good to be the king, no one wants to be the peasants to that king. Therefore free and democratic societies are going to have a distinct edge over despots in attracting colonists.

And even then, colonies are going to be hurting for labor. Which means that each colonist will have to be more productive than is usual. Its one of the problems the US has always had, a shortage of labor, which has forced its work force to be more productive. (One of the reasons American workers end up earning more than their developing world counterparts. There are fewer of us, and because of that, we are more productive.)

To make the work force more productive means to be better educated. And better educated folks are, the less tolerant they are of guys in shiny hats telling them how to live. The more educated, the less need there is for a king, and the more desire there is for democratic governments.

Knowledge is power, and power is the ability to affect change. The very resources and people a colony needs in order to succeeds, serves as a natural immunity from slavery or despotism. Folks are always going to look for the bigger better deal, and slavery just ain't that attractive.

Then there is all the constraints that a slave society puts on the slave owners, in order to prevent a slave rebellion. Its a whole can of worms that one does not want to get into. (Unless one is writing a kick ass science fiction program and needs the natural conflict.

)

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 15, 2003 8:32 AM

FRANCO

Immunity corrupts

That is excellent and we see it at work constantly, both from the restraint that it brings and in the deluded minds of those that think they have attained that immunity.

There is no such thing as permanent immunity but the Romans proved that a balance of beneficence and cruelty can sustain an empire until it rots from within. Half a millennium is a pretty good stand.

The many frontier colonies of Firefly may be close to immunity but only the most benevolent despotism would survive long.

It may be good to be King but for it to last you better be a good King.

Franco

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 15, 2003 7:27 PM

ARCHER

I think good old Rance Burgess learned that lesson the hard way, yep.

We don't know who put this cup of life into our hands. But when we go our bones will bake upon the burning sands. 'Cause we walk but once among the living, so no regrets and no forgiving- it's hard to dance when you're down upon your knees. And these are dark days indeed.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE